' With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this case is admitted to regular hearing and is being disposed of as Pacca case.
2. The petitioner/pre-emptor impugned the concurrent judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below, whereby suit for possession through pre-emption was dismissed for non- performance of Talbs
3. The petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption. The respondents entered appearance, filed their written statement, issues were framed and both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 21-3-1998 holding that the pre- emptor has failed to prove Talbs. An appeal was preferred, which, too, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi on 7-9-2003, hence this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was non-suited on account of minor contradictions which are likely to occur in case when the evidence is recorded after a considerable period of time.
5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments of both the Courts below and urged that the contradictions are not minor, but in fact were substantial one. He adds that both the learned Courts below rightly non-suited the petitioner.
6. I have carefully considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and the evidence on record with their able assistance.
7. Both the learned Courts below-nonsuited the petitioner on account of the contradictions which are listed hereunder:--
(i) P. W.1, plaintiff pre-emptor has deposed that his son informed him about the sale after sitting on the cot alongwith two other witnesses. On the contrary, when Sultan Akbar's son appeared as P.W.2, he deposed that he told his father about the alleged sale, while standing besides the cot.
(ii) Zafar Ali stated as P.W.3 that, when Sultan Akbar disclosed the factum of sale to his father, his father was sitting on the cot for about 2-1/2 minutes while P. W .2 stated that all the informers including his son remained sitting on the cot for 1-1/2 hours and then went away. As against this, P.W. 2 stated that they had not gone away but remained present at the place, where the factum of sale was disclosed
8. In Tajammal Hussain Khan and 3 others v. Allah Ditta and another 2003 MLD Lahore 14 (D.B.), it was held that the minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses will not affect the testimony as a whole. In the cited case the witnesses contradicted each other as to the point of time in visiting respondent for performance of Talbs. A learned Division Bench of this Court in the afore-mentioned case observed that the members of rustic society in a village, are not expected to give details with computerized precision about the time of visit for performance of Talbs.
9. In Abdul Qayyum through legal heirs v. Mushk-e-Alam and another 3001 SCMR 798, it was held by their Lordships in the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that the witnesses of Talbs are not expected to remember each and every date after a long time. Variations in their statements would be natural as they are not to give statements as tape-recorders. Evidence of witnesses cannot be rejected on ground of minor variations. Keeping in view the law declared in the afore-stated cases, concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts below are not sustainable. Such findings whether sacrosanct and are protected from judicial scrutiny, is not a universal rule.
Misreading/non-reading or misconstruing evidence do call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
10. The contradictions mentioned in para No.7 are minor in nature and are likely to occur, if, evidence is recorded after same time. Truthfulness of a witness cannot be tested on the touchstone of its verbatism reproduction like a photographic exactness or video transcription.
Human memories do not retain photographic picture. Statements are to be judged on their own intrinsic worth after analyzing and considering as a whole. No premium or capital be gained out of small variations/minor contradictions, which are likely to occur in the statement of every truthful witness except a tutored witness.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that this civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. Resultantly, suit of the petitioner is decreed against a consideration of Rs.1,00,000 which shall be deposited by the petitioner/pre-emptor within a period of two months, after deduction of 1/3rd, failing which his suit shall stand dismissed.